LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: "Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arjan@linux.intel.com,
	mingo@elte.hu, ak@suse.de, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com,
	andrea@suse.de, clameter@sgi.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com, willy@linux.intel.com,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] direct IO submission and completion scalability issues
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:31:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080204103135.GB15210@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080204101243.GC15220@kernel.dk>

On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 11:12:44AM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 06:21:28PM -0700, Suresh B wrote:
> > 
> > Hi guys,
> > 
> > Just had another way we might do this. Migrate the completions out to
> > the submitting CPUs rather than migrate submission into the completing
> > CPU.
> > 
> > I've got a basic patch that passes some stress testing. It seems fairly
> > simple to do at the block layer, and the bulk of the patch involves
> > introducing a scalable smp_call_function for it.
> > 
> > Now it could be optimised more by looking at batching up IPIs or
> > optimising the call function path or even mirating the completion event
> > at a different level...
> > 
> > However, this is a first cut. It actually seems like it might be taking
> > slightly more CPU to process block IO (~0.2%)... however, this is on my
> > dual core system that shares an llc, which means that there are very few
> > cache benefits to the migration, but non-zero overhead. So on multisocket
> > systems hopefully it might get to positive territory.
> 
> That's pretty funny, I did pretty much the exact same thing last week!

Oh nice ;)


> The primary difference between yours and mine is that I used a more
> private interface to signal a softirq raise on another CPU, instead of
> allocating call data and exposing a generic interface. That put the
> locking in blk-core instead, turning blk_cpu_done into a structure with
> a lock and list_head instead of just being a list head, and intercepted
> at blk_complete_request() time instead of waiting for an already raised
> softirq on that CPU.

Yeah I was looking at that... didn't really want to add the spinlock
overhead to the non-migration case. Anyway, I guess that sort of
fine implementation details is going to have to be sorted out with
results.

  reply	other threads:[~2008-02-04 10:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-07-28  1:21 Siddha, Suresh B
2007-07-30 18:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-07-30 20:35   ` Siddha, Suresh B
2007-07-31  4:19     ` Nick Piggin
2007-07-31 17:14       ` Siddha, Suresh B
2007-08-01  0:41         ` Nick Piggin
2007-08-01  0:55           ` Siddha, Suresh B
2007-08-01  1:24             ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-03  9:52 ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-03 10:53   ` Pekka Enberg
2008-02-03 11:58     ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-04  2:10   ` David Chinner
2008-02-04  4:14     ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-04  4:40       ` David Chinner
2008-02-04 10:09         ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-05  0:14           ` David Chinner
2008-02-08  7:50             ` Nick Piggin
2008-02-04 18:21     ` Zach Brown
2008-02-04 20:10       ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-04 21:45         ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-02-05  8:24           ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-04 10:12   ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-04 10:31     ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2008-02-04 10:33       ` Jens Axboe
2008-02-04 22:28         ` James Bottomley
2008-02-04 10:30   ` Andi Kleen
2008-02-04 21:47   ` Siddha, Suresh B

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080204103135.GB15210@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andrea@suse.de \
    --cc=andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com \
    --cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=clameter@sgi.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
    --cc=willy@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=zach.brown@oracle.com \
    --subject='Re: [rfc] direct IO submission and completion scalability issues' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).